[M3devel] This disgusting TEXT business

[Rodney M. Bates]

They look very believable on my email client.

Perhaps I glossed over this.  Yes, if your keyboard/editor can be set to
handle the glyphs you want directly, then you can always use them in
literals, of either kind, instead of escape sequences.  I am sure we need
more implementation work here, but I think the TEXT abstraction is fine
in this respect.

We still need escapes too, as an alternative for when using a
keyboard/display setting isn't convenient, and it is for this
purpose I am suggesting this extension to the TEXT literals, as
part of making Unicode support complete.

Dragiša Durić wrote:
>   As my mother's tongue uses two alphabets for writing, Latin covered by
> ISO-8859-2 and Cyrillic covered by ISO-8859-5, with one-to-one glyph
> correspondence and three digraphs in Latin variant I think I have
> over-average experience with non-Latin1 alphabets, in various areas.
> 
>   If I have to express what we call widetext literal in my code, I will
> have to work with Unicode tables and pick character by character.
> Tedious!
> 
>   What I would do is - switch my keyboard to either Latin or Cyrillic
> mapping and - imagine that!!! - just type! Thus getting UTF-8 characters
> into my source. My example literal would be:
> 
> CONST
>  MyNameInCyrillic = "Драгиша Дурић";
>  MyNameInLatin = "Dragiša Durić";
> 
> You can see or not these glyphs, depending on your MUA and to some
> degree on MTA's in transit. 
> 
> With all WIDE* talk it is what I am using. Me being example guy from
> non-Latin1 world. How many of you are non-Latin1 people and using 16bit
> "W literals" ?
> 

  - Rodney Bates